'Tapestry' deserves a Nobel prize in
physics and 'Breath' a Nobel prize in literature.

Your energy flow paradigm makes total sense to me. As you
show, it explains all of Einstein's findings but also explains the arrow
of time.

A truly seminal book!"

Lloyd Morgan, Director, CentralBrainTumorRegistry of the United States.

“A friend lent me your book ‘Breath of the Cosmos’.

It takes my breath away.”

P.H., Complementary Therapist..

"I
very much enjoyed your book 'Tapestry of Light' ."

H.S.,
Artist.

"I have greatly
enjoyed reading and absorbing the content of ‘Breath of the Cosmos’.
Your use of language, style and format shows a keen perception of the
joy of communication, the love of poetry and the gift of presentation.

I shall treasure this
book the more because I have made notes on the text throughout as I have
discovered and, I suspect, will continue to so do, each new delight.

Do not stop writing
now. You have many special gifts and there are many, many people who
will soon be waiting for more of your work."

Shirley Day,
English teacher (retired), Kent.

Of a multimedia presentation:

"I
just want to say a BIG, BIG thank you for your magnificent 'performance'
last night!

It was truly inspirational and a wonderful kick off to the whole
evening. You are definitely a communicator!"

Sue Minns.,
Author

"I thought your talk at the London College of
Spirituality 2012 Forum was absolutely fantastic - interesting, funny,
massively informative and you made some complex science very accessible.
Your books have been on my to-buy list since then, how wonderful that
they are now on their way. I really look forward to reading them."

Dee Apolline, The Big Chi,
London.

On a presentation on 'Breath'

"We have not heard the relationship between
spiritual perception and science described so beautifully before as it
was by you – two sides of the coin. Thank you for a wonderful evening.”

Here you'll find
everything from the Marx Brothers to singing bowls, from grass-hoppers to
goldfish - and much, much more - all in the name of science.

"The perfect balance of new
science, humour & helpful info that people can relate to in their
lives", "I am impressed! I found it easy to read, not boring at all!
very interesting and have subscribed for more!", "clear and precise,
easy to read and acutely interesting. I like the user-friendly
presentation. I have subscribed!"

Subscribe
free for notifications of new postings.

It
Ain't Necessarily So:

Einstein's Theory
May Contain a Fundamental Error

A re-analysis of the evidence reveals a
completely new view of the universe

whilst still supporting all
experimentally proven findings of that theory

For over 100 years Einstein's Theory of
Relativity has defined the direction of scientific research. In that
time numerous studies have confirmed various features of that theory.

But a central principle of relativity
theory has never been proved. If wrong, it could be hiding a wide
range of research opportunities.

Now a new paper
shows how all of the experimentally confirmed findings of Special
Relativity can be explained without the need for that unproven
hypothesis.

This new perspective opens up a vast
field of new possibilities...

The significance of this
research paper shouldn't be underestimated. If its findings are correct -
and a wealth of research evidence from other sources supports that view
– then
ALL physics research over the past hundred years has been subject to an
unnecessary limitation. Crucially, models of reality such as String Theory and
M-Theory have been trying to get round a problem that doesn't actually exist.

Titled 'Elementary Sub-Atomic
Particles: The Earliest Adaptive Systems', by Dr Grahame
Blackwell, this paper
appears in 'Kybernetes',
the journal of the World Organisation of Systems and Cybernetics., as an invited
paper in the first issue of the 40th anniversary volume. It
cites a wide range of research evidence from the early 1900s right
up to the present day supporting the view that the smallest particles of matter are in fact photons
– tiny
elements of light*
– wrapped around to 'chase their own tails'.

[* 'Light' is used here as a
general term to include all electromagnetic waves, not just the ones we see.]

It shows how such particles
could have been formed as a natural consequence of the settling-out process in
the first instants after the Big Bang that brought our universe into being.
It then shows how matter formed in this way would behave exactly as described by
Relativity Theory. It even
provides a possible explanation for the imbalance between matter and antimatter
in the universe - a question that's been puzzling scientists for 80 years.

So what difference does this
make?

The clue is in the picture
above. If I'm chugging along
the highway at 30 miles an hour and a police car passes me doing 100 mph, it'll
disappear into the distance pretty quickly - at a relative speed of 70 mph, in fact. But if I'd been doing 60 mph, that same
police car would pull past me at a relative speed of only 40 mph and take rather
longer to disappear out of sight.

Even if it was a rocket that
passed me doing, say, 1000 mph, its passing speed relative to me would be the
difference between that 1000 mph and my speed. Ok, this is all
schoolboy/girl stuff.

But Relativity says this is not the case with light. Relativity says whatever speed you're
doing, light will always pass you at the same relative speed -
even if you're travelling almost at light-speed yourself.
It's as if that police car is doing 100 and you're doing 60
–
or 80, or 90, or
even 99 mph
–
and still that police car pulls past you and disappears
away into the distance at a speed relative to you of 100 mph.

Relativity Theory says that's
just how it is, that's what light does. It may seem pretty odd, but never
mind, just get used to it. And science has got used to it,
and been basing its sums on it, for 100 years.

But the new perspective given
by this paper on particles made from light says "It ain't necessarily so".
Sure, that's what it seems like. But if physics has taught us anything in
the last 100 years it's that things aren't always what they seem.

We have the benefit of 20/20
hindsight, which Einstein didn't have in respect of the wavelike behaviour of
particles. That sort of stuff had yet to be discovered when Einstein first
formulated Relativity Theory. But now we have more than enough evidence
that matter has wavelike properties, just like light.

It turns out that, if
particles of matter are made of light, they're affected by being in
motion. Crucially, they experience the motion of
other things differently. In particular, they experience light itself quite differently
– so it always seems
to be going at the same speed relative to them, regardless of what speed they're
doing. It's matter itself, not light, that's causing this effect (except that it's because matter is light).

Again, so what? What's
the big deal?

The big deal, quite simply, is
that our whole picture of the universe, developed over the past century or more,
is based on that apparent property of light. And that has all sorts of
knock-on consequences, from what time is to the nature of gravity. If that
view of light is wrong
–
and there's no hard
evidence to say that it's right
–
we could be standing in our own way, big time,
scientifically.

One major case in point is
space travel. The standard view of spacetme is a very
useful mathematical model
– but it may well be a blind alley when it comes to
fully understanding the nature of both space and time.

That
standard view also sees a threat of possible disruptions to the universal principle of
cause-and-effect from faster-than-light travel, or from closed timelike
curves (time-reversal loops in spacetime).

The new perspective presented
by this paper indicates that such threats don't in fact exist, as well as
offering new understandings of both space and time. That reassurance and that understanding open the way to
serious consideration of strategies for superluminal (faster-than-light)
communications and travel, essential for serious forays beyond the bounds of our
own solar system.

Finally, the paper's title
highlights the fact that every tiniest sub-atomic particle has the ability to
adapt automatically to changing circumstances. The paper explains how this
ability came about in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang, pointing out that
without such ability no particle would have lasted even a millionth of a second.
That adaptability can be seen as the very earliest stage of the process of
natural selection, the very first rung in the cosmic evolutionary ladder.

Quote from Dr Blackwell:

"Perhaps the biggest prize -
and the biggest surprise
– from this research is the comprehensive
explanation that it offers of the mechanisms that cause gravity. Many
people believe that Einstein explained how gravity works, but in fact he didn't
at all." [See news of a later paper on gravity.]

"Einstein gave us a very
useful new description of the effects of gravity. The 'curved spacetime'
of General Relativity has made it possible to perform all sorts of calculations
related to the motion of stars and planets, and their effects on other things
such as spacecraft. But to date there's been absolutely no explanation of
why it is that those stars and planets cause spacetime to be curved, what
'curved space-time' actually is, or how it is that curved spacetime causes
objects to move in the way that they do."

"Various notable physicists
have pointed to shortcomings in our present view of gravitation, including the
late great Nobel laureate in Quantum Physics, Richard Feynman, and Professor
Stephen Hawking."

"Whilst it's not included in
this paper, the cyclic-photon view of matter offers a full explanation of what
it is about galaxies, stars and planets that causes space to be curved and why
that in turn makes things fall down and causes planets to orbit stars, moons to
orbit planets, and so on. This is another absolute first in the history of
science, one that potentially opens the way for us to fulfil our destiny out
there among those stars."

Since submission of this
paper a definitive proof has been devised
by the author showing that the conventional view of material reality as
presented by Special Relativity contains a fundamental flaw. This proof
relies only on a scientific principle conclusively established by numerous
peer-reviewed practical studies over many decades and universally accepted by
the international scientific community.

This
proof will be published as soon as an opportunity is provided for publication in
a quality journal with a guarantee of minimal delay between submission and
publication. The proof runs to 1450 words including references and
contains absolutely no mathematics. With just a little additional
explanation it could be readily understood by the average lay-person - a
PowerPoint presentation is being prepared with this in mind.